found an interesting article on it:
The Jesuit Theonomy
This recent Evangelical-Roman Catholic Accord is just one more step in a long line of dialogue and betrayal. The amount of ecumenical activity today is absolutely staggering. The drive to unite "Christendom" (really Popedom) has been greatly accelerated in the past few years.
However when one examines the participants closely he will see that the unity aimed at is NOT the unity of
John 17 but the unity of
Revelation 17. The great blasphemies and errors of the Papacy have all been tied into Mystery Babylon the Great by almost every biblical commentator who has ever lived.
Certainly the Reformers viewed the Papacy as Antichrist and IT WAS THIS VERY VIEW WHICH LED THEM, and those who followed them, in their REVOLT from Rome. As we have pointed out, in more detail, in our other study Antichrist and Optimism, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO REFORMATION AT ALL if the Reformers had accepted the novel ideas of the modern Reconstructionists.
In fact the Reformers could not have been reconstructionists in their theology for they set about to DELIBERATELY WRECK the papal theocracy of the Middle Ages, the very ideal of modern theonomists both Jesuit and Reformed.
If they had not been at least, partially successful in deliberately shattering the evil theocracy of the Papacy, WE
WOULD ALL BE IN THE DARK AGES STILL! Why can otherwise intelligent men not see this truth today?
The papacy pretends to be the great defender of human rights and democracy in the world today but is in fact, still the great enemy of the truth that it has been for centuries. We know that a lynch mob is a democracy in action, but we also recognize that the constitution of the United States is one of the best documents which man has produced.
Rome of course does not agree. Reconstructionists do not agree either. The Reconstructionists, like Pat Robertson and others, want to set up a theonomy in the United States. Rome's idea of the church ruling in the middle ages, is very similar to Pat Roberston's desire now to have the church ruling in the United States.
We believe that man is a depraved sinner so no theonomy can be achieved. The Constitution of the United States while not being perfect nevertheless has checks and balances built in to it, which is about the best that man can hope for before the return of Christ. Certainly, the Constitution of the United States should NEVER be bartered away for a Jesuit-sponsored theonomy.
Rome hates the Constitution of the United States and has shown that, in various attacks on it, both open and subtle. Certainly the most open one which we have read was in the Jesuit Magazine, "America."
An Irish Roman Catholic priest said:
The honest fact is that I just don't understand the reverence, not to say adoration, which every body here seems to pay to the "Americun Constitooshun." I want to hear some American get up and shout: "Give us justice. Give us decency. And to hell with the American Constitution. 1
The bald faced deception of Rome is indeed a marvel to behold. Here was a priest pretending to care about decency and justice and he had just come from a country whose own constitution set up the Roman Catholic Church in a place of privilege and treated all Protestants as second class citizens.
This is always the problem with any kind of theonomy. Who determines the meaning of decency and justice and even more importantly; the meaning of truth? Malachi Martin shows us who he thinks can determine the truth for us. He says of Pope John Paul II:
It sets them apart (all those who believe in democratic principles) from the Holy Father, because democratic principles cannot take precedence over divine revelation... it is axiomatic for John Paul that no one has the right — democratic or otherwise -- to a moral wrong; and no religion based on divine
revelation has a moral right to teach such a moral wrong or abide by it. 2
This is the same position the reconstructionists also take today. Rushdoony claims error has no rights. The only
trouble with such a position is: who determines who is right and who is in error?
The very pope who teaches that no one has a democratic right to a moral wrong certainly believes that he has a papal, and autocratic right, to a moral wrong which is just as bad or EVEN WORSE than a democratic right! He practices Mariolatry and idolatry which are heinous moral wrongs to Bible-believing Protestants. His "church" not only teaches these morals wrongs, but also teaches officially under an archbishop's Imprimatur, that those who oppose these moral wrongs are blasphemers!
http://seawaves.us/na/web4/theonomy.html#chap_6
Threaded Mode
